QCQ #1
“In our time, science and technology cannot play an integrating role, precisely because of the infinite richness of knowledge and the speed of its evolution, which have led to specialization and its obscurities”
“But literature has been, and will continue to be, as long as it exists, one of the common denominators of human experience through which human beings may recognize themselves and converse with each other”
I wanted to include two quotations that disagree fairly blatantly with one another and are placed right after eachother as well, because I think they both play a role in the value of literature. The first one states that technology and science cannot play an integrating role due to its evolution, which I agree with. Technology evolves so quickly, especially now it’s very hard for older generations to keep up with the current, but they can always talk about books and literature. Just the fact that the internet itself was created less than 40 years ago and already we have access to the internet, a camera, calculator, telephone, and messaging service in our pockets – is mind blowing. This is why generations are so split with the understanding of technology. We have some who are born knowing it, then others who were alive during its creation and have to adapt to a completely new world. However my question would be regarding the second quote: Wouldn’t utilizing technology (iPad or Laptop) to analyze and read text and literature – even writing – be considered integration of technology?
QCQ #2
“A person who does not read, or reads little, or reads only trash, is a person with an impediment: he can speak much but he will say little, because his vocabulary is deficient in the means for self-expression. This is not only a verbal limitation. It represents also a limitation in intellect and in imagination”
This statement is one that I personally disagree with, especially with a large chunk of my generation not reading as much as old ones due to the uprising of a plethora of modern pastimes. I don’t read many books. I truly enjoy creative writing, and enjoy reading novels that I’m interested in, but don’t very often. However I also do know how to read and write therefore am not a true representative to challenge this statement. I think that it is ludicrous to say that knowledge of literature limits expression and imagination. Expression can be described as feelings that you show and feelings can be described with words, but they don’t have to be. Many artists – for example Chella Man – produce extremely imaginative and expressive work, but are hindered by disabilities that can stunt or slow their literary understanding. Elvis Presley didn’t know how to read music, but could create it extremely captivatingly. In my opinion knowledge of literature is a vocally expressive impediment and one that regards vocabulary, but not creativity. My question would be: what is the explanation of visual artists that are dyslexic or don’t read literature creating expressive art?
